Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Drop older Python support #1326

Closed
albertz opened this issue May 16, 2023 · 6 comments · Fixed by #1668
Closed

Drop older Python support #1326

albertz opened this issue May 16, 2023 · 6 comments · Fixed by #1668
Assignees

Comments

@albertz
Copy link
Member

albertz commented May 16, 2023

Via #487, we are now supporting Python >=3.7.

Do we want to bump this and require Python >=3.8 or later? See also the Python feature list in #487.

Similarly, Python >=3.8 is now required for i6_core: rwth-i6/i6_core#409, rwth-i6/i6_core#408

Same discussion for Python >=3.8 for i6_models: rwth-i6/i6_models#11

@christophmluscher
Copy link
Collaborator

I would say at least 3.8. Ubuntu 22 defaults to 3.10, so maybe move to 3.10?!

@curufinwe
Copy link
Collaborator

3.8 is ok (as it's the default for ubuntu 20.04). Anything higher I would delay for now until we (Apptek) have firmly tested our new ubuntu 22.04 images. Thanks!

@albertz
Copy link
Member Author

albertz commented Dec 13, 2024

Btw, I think we don't really have any place where we explicitly write the min required Python version? We should maybe add that to the README or so.

@NeoLegends
Copy link
Collaborator

Do you plan to make any changes to RETURNN during the version bump (other than bumping the min version)? I don't see many changes in 3.7 vs. 3.8 that would warrant large code changes? Maybe some arguments can be made positional-only for better forwards-compatibility, but this is at the same a backwards-compatibility risk, so I'm not sure it should be done to any existing code.

@albertz
Copy link
Member Author

albertz commented Dec 13, 2024

Do you plan to make any changes to RETURNN during the version bump

No, of course not. This would be unrelated. Also not really necessary, not important at all.

@NeoLegends
Copy link
Collaborator

NeoLegends commented Dec 13, 2024

Ah, by dropping support for 3.7 we also drop support for TF1. See #1668 (comment). TF1 has been EOL for quite some time now, so I believe it's ok to drop support given that you can always use an older RETURNN version for your legacy-TF experiments as well.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

4 participants